Re: [Hipsec] Overlay work: status and request for input

[Petri Jokela <[e-mail]>]

On 20.7.2009, at 12.33, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> Folks,
>
> 1) We have the following milestone:
>
> "Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This framework will
...
> The resulting document is the draft below. We would like to ask the WG
> if it is OK to split our current milestone in two so that they cover  
> the
> high-level framework and the definition in separate documents.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-keranen-hip-reload-instance-00.txt
>
> Additionally, we would like to ask the WG if we should take the draft
> above as the WG item associated to the milestone for the definition.
>

The proposal sounds reasonable, taking also into account the  
discussion that has been going on in another thread.

> 2) We have the following milestone:
...
> We still do not have a WG item for it but the following draft has been
> around for some time. We would like to ask the WG if we should adopt  
> the
> following draft as the WG item for this milestone.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nikander-hip- 
> hiccups-02.txt
>

For me, this sounds good. As in the previous case, taking into account  
also the ongoing discussion on the related thread.

> 3) In order to be able to support the functionality provided by  
> RELOAD,
> HIP needs to support multi-hop routing. Instead of specifying it in  
> the
> HIP BONE draft, having a separate draft seem to make more sense given
> that this functionality has a more general applicability than  
> overlays.
> We would like to ask the WG if we should spin off a new milestone from
> our original milestone for overlays that covers multihop routing in  
> HIP.
>
> The following draft takes a stab at specifying multihop routing in  
> HIP.
> We would like to ask the WG if we should adopt it as a WG item for the
> milestone above (assuming we decide to create the milestone).
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-hip-via-00.txt

This sounds ok.


> 4) We have the following milestone:
>
> "Specify how to generate ORCHIDs from other node identifiers
> including both cryptographic ones (leading to cryptographic
> delegation) and non-cryptographic ones (e.g., identifiers defined by a
> peer protocol)."
>
> When we created that milestone, we expected to have a generic  
> mechanism
> to transform node IDs into ORCHIDs. However, at this point, it seems
> that such transformation will be done in different ways depending on  
> the
> peer protocol used in a particular overlay. For example, the instance
> specification for RELOAD draft defines such transformation for RELOAD
> peer identifiers. The fact that nobody has submitted a draft for that
> milestone seems to confirm the previous impression. We would like to  
> ask
> the WG if we should remove that milestone from our charter.

While there is no activity, it seems reasonable to remove it now.

/petri


> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
> HIP co-chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>
>

-- 
Petri Jokela                        Tel:    [phone]
Research scientist                  Fax:    [phone]
NomadicLab, Ericsson Research       Mobile: [phone]
Oy L M Ericsson Ab                  email: [e-mail]